U.S. Supreme Court removes buffer zones from abortion clinic protestors

The Supreme Court ruled that people could talk to people entering the clinics but if they are blocking the door, are asked to leave and won't, they can be arrested. This was a 9-0 ruling, and the main factor seems to be that the 35-foot limit that the law created was too far. Come closer, talk to us, they seem to say. It may also have gotten those "free speech zone cages" tossed into the unwanted dustbin of history. I actually saw one of those once, you had to go into a metal cage to protest, one of the weirdest sights I've seen in a constitutional land.

www.usatoday.com...

The new ruling could have national impact on the practice of erecting buffer zones and public protest zones. It could open others to question, such as those outside polling places, political conventions, funeral services -- even the court's own plaza.

After a federal district judge ruled last year that a 1949 law barring demonstrations on court property was unconstitutional, the court quickly issued a regulation that has the same effect. Roberts — who did not speak at all during oral arguments in the abortion case — approved the regulation.

McCullen and other abortion opponents have sought for years to waylay women on their way to getting abortions by offering advice and alternatives.

a reply to: Aleister

Did you post this accidentally?

This OP needs some skin on its bones!

I despise all abortion clinics, killing babies and getting away with...

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Aleister

Did you post this accidentally?

This OP needs some skin on its bones!

No, I wrote up a good OP for Breaking Alternative News, then went to post it, and couldn't find a post button! So I brought it to a different forum, losing my write up in the process.

My feeling is you should be able to practice free speech in any public place if you are not barring people from entering or exiting. This includes speech that I don't agree with or even despise. Such is necessary to protect the integrity and spirit of the first Amendment.

If you can't be bothered with 45 seconds of accosting on your way into the clinic how are you prepared to handle the mental stress of actually having the abortion and coping post abortion. It's a big and scary world out there, people need to toughen up and understand that freedom comes at a cost and sometimes that cost is your personal comfort.

a reply to: Aleister

Ah, bummer. That is always a drag!

On the matter at hand then, I personally think that the decision by the court is a sensible one. While I am of the opinion that a nation which has proper separation between church and state, has no business telling a woman that she may not have an abortion, I also believe that people who believe otherwise have a right to make their point, and so this is an appropriate compromise.

What I dislike, is the attitude amongst pro-lifers which seeks to impose motherhood on those who are unwilling or unable to go through with it. The thing is, that no one is forcing people to abort babies, or rather, any attempt to do so for any reason other than a purely medical concern, would be a criminal offence. So those who wish to have children may, and those who wish not to may have abortions. Everyone gets what they want, apart, of course, from those who wish to force their ideology onto someone else.

There is a right to protest and that is righteous, but pro-lifers must understand that they have no right to impose a law preventing women who do not want to have children, from having abortions when they fall pregnant.

Well I am glad for this decision. I for one think most women going into said clinics could probably USE a good 45 seconds of accosting.

Big step back to the days patients got harassed and attacked going into clinics ..
Things will get ugly there again ... very ugly ..

a reply to: Aleister

Okay, so the Supremes ruled that protesters, et al, only need to be 8 feet away from the event that they are protesting. That means Westboro Baptist funeral protests won't be kept away from service family members?

Great!

Perhaps women seeking abortions should start carrying guns and employ the threat of "stand your ground" when entering the clinics.

originally posted by: Helious
My feeling is you should be able to practice free speech in any public place if you are not barring people from entering or exiting. This includes speech that I don't agree with or even despise. Such is necessary to protect the integrity and spirit of the first Amendment.

Well said.

This case was about a 35-foot Mass. buffer zone, and the Court said it violates First Amendment rights. I just heard it's a narrow ruling, so the state could write up a legal compromise which would allow access to the facility as well as room for protestors to try to talk to or pray with/for the people walking into one of the abortion/health clinics.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Aleister

Okay, so the Supremes ruled that protesters, et al, only need to be 8 feet away from the event that they are protesting. That means Westboro Baptist funeral protests won't be kept away from service family members?

Great!

Yikes. You may be right. But that also makes less room for family members of the deceased to have to reach over to smack ém.

a reply to: Aleister

This looks like a good ruling to me. I don't much care for the idea of women already having the worst moment of their lives in enough cases to matter, getting even more grief, but the precedent it established for "free speech zones" of all sorts with the same general thinking was downright ridiculous as unintended consequences.

This Super Court sessions seems to have been fairly productive.

a reply to: Helious

Agreed. I wouldn't mind an 8 foot buffer zone, just so the patients could get into the door without hassle. I would have a few (two, to be exact) choice words to say to any protestor that got in my way if I chose to have an abortion, though.

Something to think about, though...

What remains to be seen is whether the new ruling could have national impact on the practice of erecting buffer zones and public protest zones. It could open others to question, such as those outside polling places, political conventions, funeral services -- even the court's own plaza.

Should protestors be permitted "in your face" at the polling places? I rather enjoy the fact that I'm not assaulted on my way to vote...

It sucks that a victory for civil liberties is also a victory for a-holes but that's how it goes.

originally posted by: lightedhype
Well I am glad for this decision. I for one think most women going into said clinics could probably USE a good 45 seconds of accosting.

This is one of the most hateful posts I have ever seen here on ATS. Shameful at best.

I don't believe that I have to go into all of the reasons why a women may be entering the clinic here, as I believe most of the membership here on ATS actually understand that, so I wont.

a reply to: TrueBrit

On the matter at hand then, I personally think that the decision by the court is a sensible one. While I am of the opinion that a nation which has proper separation between church and state, has no business telling a woman that she may not have an abortion, I also believe that people who believe otherwise have a right to make their point, and so this is an appropriate compromise.

Well, asking the question of "does the government have the right?" is a bit perplexing on this particular issue. For instance, they claim to have the right to tell you that you are forbidden from possessing or ingesting certain natural plants, do they have that right?

If your answer is yes then you must then ask yourself what is off the table for them to dictate when it is clear that you do not in fact have any authority about what even goes into your own body. Going a step further you run into the murkier questions of when is life actually achieved, upon conception, a week, a month.......? Then you run into those who believe it's murder and those who think it's perfectly fine in the third trimester.

Now, all of that said, I personally don't believe the government should be allowed to dictate the legality of abortion. I believe it should be closely regulated and scrutinized but every person on Earth is ultimately responsible for making their own decisions and choices. It is not up to us to judge someone else's morality and whatever consequences if any accompany those choices are not ours to dole out in some perverse attempt at social justice.

I despise the practice with all of my being but unfortunately recognize the need to preserve others freedom of choice. It's one of the many things in life I have had to take a giant step back from and examine a little more closely to understand without letting emotion and bias cloud my outlook.

You know, personally me and my wife are both anti-abortion. If, God forbid, my wife were to be raped and get pregnant, we would raise the child as our own and love that child as our own.

Having said that, I do accept that abortion is legal and I do also respect the right to free speech. However I also know that a woman who is going into an abortion clinic to have an abortion is going to struggle with that decision for years. This I base on friends and family who have had abortions. These women do not need some busybody in their face screaming at them that they are "going to hell" or "committing infanticide" or that they are a "murderer"!

Free speech should be upheld fiercely - right up to the point that it infringes on another persons rights! A person should have the right to not be harassed like that.

Oops - double post. Sorry.

a reply to: youdidntseeme



This gives them enough distance to spit and scream at the women going in for one.
This will cause much upset.
Just let women do what they want to do...no one has any right to make them do something they do not want to do.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: youdidntseeme



This gives them enough distance to spit and scream at the women going in for one.
This will cause much upset.
Just let women do what they want to do...no one has any right to make them do something they do not want to do.

I would think spitting would be an assault, an arrestable offense. Screaming, on the other hand, is free speech I guess. Loud, but free. I would hate to see a time when women entering a clinic would have to bring their own group of friends acting as bodyguards.